alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 308/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 308 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5825 November 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 308

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5825 November 2015

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2015/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2015/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area

1

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor ( OJ L 200, 31.7.2009 ) | 11 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor ( OJ L 200, 31.7.2009 )

( OJ L 200, 31.7.2009 )

11

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2022340EN.01003202.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — VI v Commission

(Case T-20/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Equal treatment - Stability in the composition of the selection board)

(2022/C 340/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Lilamand, D. Milanowska and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of, first, the decision of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 not to include her on the competition reserve list, second, the decision of that selection board to refuse the applicant’s request for review of the initial decision, third, the Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 rejecting her complaint, fourth, the notice of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 11 October 2018 organised for the purpose of drawing up two reserve lists from which the Commission would recruit administrators (AD 7) in the fields of customs and taxation and, fifth, the competition reserve list, as well as, moreover, seeking compensation for the damage which she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision, adopted after review, of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 27 February 2020 not to include VI’s name on the reserve list for that competition; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision, adopted after review, of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 27 February 2020 not to include VI’s name on the reserve list for that competition;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
# C_2008074EN.01006401.xml

| 20.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/64

---

Call for proposals under the work programmes of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

(2008/C 74/14)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the work programmes of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following calls. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the CORDIS website.

People Specific Programme:

| Call Identifiers: | FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008 | ‘Intra-European Fellowships’ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| FP7-PEOPLE-IOF-2008 | ‘International Outgoing Fellowships’ |
| FP7-PEOPLE-IIF-2008 | ‘International Incoming Fellowships’ |

Call Identifiers:

FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008

‘Intra-European Fellowships’

FP7-PEOPLE-IOF-2008

‘International Outgoing Fellowships’

FP7-PEOPLE-IIF-2008

‘International Incoming Fellowships’

These calls for proposals relate to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2007) 5740 of 28 November 2007.

Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programmes, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

LEONARD G. PAIGE, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-764 

 Judge Frost 

 Magistrate Judge King 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

ACTING COMMISSIONER 

OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

ORDER 

 On March 21, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge 

recommended that the parties’ joint stipulation to remand the action 

be granted. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 12. There has been 

no objection to that recommendation. The Report and Recommendation, 

Doc. No. 12, is ADOPTED AND AFIRMED. The joint motion to remand, Doc. 

No. 11, is GRANTED. This action is REMANDED to the Commissioner, 

pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings. 

 The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this case. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 Gregory L. Frost 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case: 2:12-cv-00764-GLF-NMK Doc #: 13 Filed: 04/09/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 46294.

#### Protest 989209-G of M. Pressner & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar to that the subject of *Butler Brothers*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was therefore sustained.
IIA 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 23 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Gold Star Mothers Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2005 

Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. 

SNOWE, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. THOMAS, 

Mrs. DOLE, Mr. THUNE, Mr. HAGEL, and Mr. LUGAR) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Gold Star Mothers Day. 

Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the 

supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing sons and 

daughters who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of all whose lives were sacrificed in 

our wars; 

Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers assist veterans of 

the Armed Forces and their dependents in the presentation of claims to the Veterans’ Administration, and aid 

the men and women who served and died or were wounded or incapacitated during hostilities; 
2 

•SJ 23 IS

Whereas the services rendered to the United States by the 

mothers of America have strengthened and inspired our 

Nation throughout our history; 

Whereas we honor ourselves and the mothers of America 

when we revere and emphasize the role of the home and 

the family as the true foundations of our Nation; 

Whereas by doing so much for the home, the American mother is a source of moral and spiritual guidance for the 

people of the United States and thus acts as a positive 

force to promote good government and peace among all 

mankind; and 

Whereas September 25, 2005, is being recognized as Gold 

Star Mothers Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress— 

4 (1) supports the goals and ideals of Gold Star Moth5 ers Day; and 

6 (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 

7 calling upon the people of the United States to observe 

8 such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ
Exhibit 34.7



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To Management of AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC

We have
examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,that AEGON USA
Realty Advisors, LLC (AEGON or the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage backed securities
transactions listed in managements assertion (the Platform), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv),
1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which AEGON has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the
Platform. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that AEGON complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

February 28, 2017

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890,www.pwc.com/us
Before the First Division,

May 1, 1952

No. 56604.

protests 974455-G, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Kai Li, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of SYSWIN Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 3, 2011 |                    |
|-------------------|-------------------------|
|              |                    |
|              | /s/ Kai Li              |
|              | Kai Li                  |
|              | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANDREW W. KATZEN MOYER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TR'BL MARKETING, L TO, eta/., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

Case No. 2:12-cv-660 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

Magistrate Judge King 

On September 27, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge King, to whom 

this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), filed a Report and 

Recommendation on Plaintiff Andrew Katzenmoyer's motion to remand. ECF No. 

20. Magistrate Judge King recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion 

to remand, ECF No. 9, because this Court's jurisdiction is based on the 

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 

U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically 

advised the parties that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation 

within fourteen days of the Report would result in a "waiver of the right to de novo 

review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District 

Court adopting the Report and Recommendation." Report and Recommendation 

10-11, ECF No. 20. The time period for filing objections to the Report and 

Recommendation has expired and Plaintiff has not objected. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00660-MHW-NMK Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/17/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such 

objections expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 20, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand, ECF No. 

9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Ml ~~·~ HAEUi.WASON, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case No. 2: 12-cv--660 Page 2 of 2 

Case: 2:12-cv-00660-MHW-NMK Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/17/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section 

Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Appendix 3.12-A 

Residential, Business, and Mobile 

Home Relocation Assistance 

Brochures 

November 2017 
Appendix 3.12-A 

Residential, Business, and Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Brochures 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix 3.12-A 

Residential, Business, and Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Brochures 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.12-A-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

APPENDIX 3.12-A: RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, AND MOBILE 

HOME RELOCATION ASSISTANCE BROCHURES 

A number of technical appendices included as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have not been 

recreated for the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS because the information contained 

within the technical appendix would remain applicable to the F-B LGA. Appendix 3.12-A did not 

require an update for the F-B LGA analysis and therefore is not included in Volume II of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. To review the appendix in its entirety, 

please refer to the Authority’s Final EIR/EIS: Fresno to Bakersfield website. 
Appendix 3.12-A 

Residential, Business, and Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Brochures 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

3.12-A-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank
No. 62008.

#### D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 313942-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 6 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sunshine Heart, Inc.

 

 
| Date:   July 17, 2012 | /s/   David Rosa                          |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                       | David   Rosa                              |
|                       | *Chief   Executive Officer*               |
|                       |                                      |
|                       |                                      |
| Date:   July 17, 2012 | /s/   Jeffrey Mathiesen                   |
|                       | Jeffrey   Mathiesen                       |
|                       | *Chief   Financial Officer and Secretary* |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Alan Newell,

Case No. 2:12-cv-616

Plaintiff, 

v. Judge Graham

Alloy Polymers et al., Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss count IV of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) or in the alternative 12(b)(1). (Doc. 6.) Defendants argue that

plaintiff’s claim arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., must

be dismissed because plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and has not obtained

a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In response, plaintiff asserts that the ADA claim “was filed in error,” and purports to amend

his complaint to omit that claim. (Doc. 9.) However, once a responsive pleading has been filed, in

this case an answer, the complaint may only be amended by leave of the Court. See Pertuso v. Ford

Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) gives plaintiffs an

absolute right to amend their complaint one time before a ‘responsive pleading’ is served . . . .”). 

Once a responsive pleading has been served, a plaintiff may amend the complaint by leave of the

Court. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 15(a)(2).

The Court construes plaintiff’s purported amended complaint (doc. 8) as a motion to amend

his complaint and GRANTS that motion. Given that the amended complaint does not include the

claim for which defendants seek dismissal, their motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is DENIED as moot.

Case: 2:12-cv-00616-MRA Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/10/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ James L. Graham 

JAMES L. GRAHAM

United States District Judge

DATE: September 10, 2012

Case: 2:12-cv-00616-MRA Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/10/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 46892.

#### Protests 47126-K, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Inasmuch as the merchandise was imported after the effective date of the British Trade Agreement (T. D. 49753) the rough welting kip butts in question were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1530 (b) (7) as claimed. *Filoon*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 189, C. D. 230) and *Rice*v. *United States*(7 id. 109, C. D. 547) followed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

Jude and L Construction, LLC )

)

)

) ASBCA Nos. 63336, 63337, 63338

63339, 63340, 63341

63342, 63343, 63344

63345, 63551

)

Under Contract No. N33191

- 19

- C

- 0805 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Philip R. Croessmann, Esq.

Tyler R. Asher, Esq.

Croessmann & Westberg, P.C.

Vienna, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Jerry Kim, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated : May 7 , 2024

TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63336, 63337, 63338, 63339,

63340, 63341, 63342, 63343, 63344, 63345, 63551

, Appeals of Jude and L Construction,

LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated:

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals